Page 24 - 2022 Risk Basics - Radiology

SVMIC Risk Basics: Radiology

Virtually all working radiologists admit that they almost never re-review
studies at the time they sign the reports. Admittedly, performing this re-

review would benefit many patients and prevent some claims, but the
time and costs to perform a re-review would be immense, and it is simply

not done in practice. Therefore, when the interpreting radiologist signs
the report – no matter how carefully it is read – he or she will seldom be

aware of, let alone correct, transcribing errors.

It must be remembered that in a malpractice trial, the actions of a

radiologist are judged by a jury of lay persons. If a defendant radiologist
looks foolish, careless, or disinterested to his or her colleagues, he or she

surely looks that way to the jurors. The truth notwithstanding, if jurors
perceive that a defendant radiologist has been careless or disinterested,

the jurors may well render a verdict against the radiologist.

Another communication issue is the lack of history (medical and/or
family) and other pertinent information that the radiologist receives from

the referring provider. Radiologists rarely have the opportunity to obtain
direct information from the patient or patient’s family members. They rely

solely on the limited information that is communicated by other providers,
which is often vague and incomplete for the radiologist’s purposes.

Radiologists are often expected to perform their services in a vacuum.
Let’s a take look at a case study involving inaccurate information that the

radiologist was given.

C A S E S T U DY

A 45-year-old male underwent hernia repair performed on

January 25, complicated by a protrusion of viscera through the
mesentery and severe adhesions throughout the abdomen. On

February 1, the patient developed severe abdominal pain and a
CT was performed. The CT of the abdomen and pelvis was read

via teleradiology by the radiologist, who was located in a different

Page 24